River Flows Are a Reliable Index of Forest Fire Risk in the Temper- Ate Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage Area, Australia

Home , Davey River, Franklin River, King River (Tasmania)

Preprints (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 4 March 2021 doi:10.20944/preprints202103.0173.v1

Article River flows are a reliable index of forest fire risk in the temperate Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage Area, Australia

David MJS Bowman1*, and Grant J Williamson2,

1 School of Natural Sciences, University of Tasmania, Sandy Bay, Tasmania, Australia; david.bow- [email protected] 2 School of Natural Sciences, University of Tasmania, Sandy Bay, Tasmania, Australia / NSW Bushfire Risk Management Research Hub; [email protected] * Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +61 428894500

Abstract: Fire risk can be defined as the probability that a fire will spread. Reliable monitoring of fire risk is essential for effective landscape management. Compilation of fire risk records enable identification of seasonal and inter-annual patterns and provide a baseline to evaluate the trajecto- ries in response to climate change. Typically, fire risk is estimated from meteorological data. In re- gions with sparse meteorological station coverage environmental proxies provide important addi- tional data stream for estimating past and current fire risk. Here we use a 60-year record of daily flows from two rivers (Franklin and Davey) in the remote Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage Area (TWWHA) to characterize seasonal patterns in fire risk in temperate Eucalyptus forests and rainforests. We show that river flows are strongly related to landscape soil moisture estimates derived from down-scaled re-analysis of meteorological data available since 1990. To identify river flow thresholds where forests are likely to burn, we relate river flows to known forest fires that have occurred in the previously defined ecohydrological domains that surround the Franklin and Davey catchments. Our analysis shows that the fire season in the TWWHA is centered on February (70% of all years below the median flow threshold), with shoulders on December-January and March. Since 1954, forest fire can occur in at least one month for all but four summers in the ecohydrological domain that includes the Franklin catchment, and since 1964 fire fire could occur in at least one month in every summer in the ecohydrological domain that includes the Davey catchment. Our analysis shows that managers can use river flows as a simple index that indicates landscape-scale forest fire risk in the TWWHA.

Keywords: fire risk; forest fire; ecohydrology; Eucalyptus forest; temperate rainforest

1. Introduction

Fire risk can be defined as the probability that a fire will spread [1]. A major determinant of landscape flammability is

the moisture content of live and dead vegetation, or ‘fuel’ [2]. Accurate determination of fuel moisture, however, is

extremely difficult given the floristic diversity and structural complexity of vegetation combined with the highly

variable effects of meso and microclimate [3]. Accordingly, weather danger indices, which are central to fire

management, use simple proxies of fuel moisture derived from available meteorological data [4]. For instance, the

Australian MacArthur index uses a bucket model estimate of soil moisture, derived from antecedent rainfall and

evapotranspiration, which is assumed to scale to fuel moisture [5,6]. With the advent of down-scaled meteorological

products it is now possible to estimate soil moisture, and therefore fuel moisture, across landscapes for the last three

decades [7]. The availability of such estimates enables refined understanding of historic spatio-temporal patterns of

fire hazard and improved predictions of fire behaviour. Critically, however, the short record length of down-scaled

meteorological data hampers quantifying basic parameters about frequency of extreme events and trends in fire risk

over longer times scales. This problem is particularly acute for remote environments that have very spare

meteorological coverage, and for vegetation communities with fire regimes with long fire-return intervals.

Given the limitation of translating available meteorological data into fire risk assessments, a diverse range of natural

archives and environmental monitoring records have been used to reconstruct trends in fire risk. Analysis of charcoal

in sediments, and tree ring and fire scar analyses provide well-established proxies to understand the linkage between

climate variation and past fire activity over several centuries at the landscape scale [8]. Ecohydrological records have

also illuminated changes in fire risk: for instance, there is a strong linkage between early spring snowmelt and increasing

extent of wildfires in the western USA [9]. Here we analyse river flows in the Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage

Area to assess whether this record can be used to quantity the seasonal pattern of forest fires and serve as an indicator

of landscape fire risk. This region has sparse meteorological coverage, yet because of hydroelectric power generation

potential there is a high-quality record of daily river flows spanning over 60 years.

The Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage Area (TWWHA) is 15,800 km2 in extent and covers almost all of the

southwest quarter of the continental island of Tasmania, which lies 200 km south of the Australian mainland [10]. The

region is geologically varied, topographically rugged, biologically diverse with a history of human occupancy from the

late Pleistocene, which together satisfy seven of ten natural and cultural heritage criteria used to assess World Heritage

status [11]. The region has a cool temperate climate in one of the wettest environments in Australia, with no pronounced

dry season, receiving in excess of 2000 mm of precipitation annually [12]. In spite of the perhumid climate, an important

feature of the TWWHA is a complex pattern of fire sensitive and fire tolerant vegetation communities with strongly

contrasting fire regimes [13]. Temperate rainforests with Gondwanan affinities only rarely burn, and only under

extreme drought conditions, whereas treeless sedgelands and Myrtaceous shrublands are highly flammable and

support high fire frequencies. Eucalyptus forests are more flammable than rainforests, and depend on fire for

regeneration [14], but have much lower fire frequencies than sedgelands [15]. The cause of the complex patterns is

Preprints (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 4 March 2021 doi:10.20944/preprints202103.0173.v1

debated but key factors relate to gradients in soil fertility and soil moisture, combined with anthropogenic ignitions and

climate changes since the late-Pleistocene [13].

Of high importance for land managers is accurate determination of trends and real-time assessment fire risk of different

plant communities in the TWWHA [16]. Although frustrated by sparse meteorological coverage, recent studies have

identified thresholds of concern for flammability of some different vegetation types in the region. Styger and Kirkpatrick

[17] provided an analysis of 11 fires, some seven of which include burned rainforest, and concluded that this vegetation

is vulnerable to wildfire if the antecedent 30-day rainfall is below 50 mm. The combination of experimentally assessed

moisture thresholds in peat soils with soil moisture estimates derived from reanalysis of meteorological data from 1990-

2018 demonstrated the vulnerability to combustion of most Tasmanian organic soils almost every summer [18].

Here we investigate an alternative approach to evaluate fire hazard in the TWWHA, based on calibration and validation

of river flows using the river level records for two major catchments in the TWWHA, the Franklin and Davey (Figure

1) which commence from 1953 and 1964 respectively. First, we substantiate that there is a linkage between the

catchment-scale soil moisture with respective daily and monthly river flows. Using this calibration, we then explore the

relationship of the occurrence of forest fires, predominantly Eucalyptus but including rainforest, within each of the two

catchments to identify river flow thresholds when forests are available to burn, and compare these to the rainforest and

organic combustion thresholds [17,18]. Finally, based on this validation we estimate the number of summers that

include periods when forests are available to burn. This research is motivated to provide a longer-term perspective on

fire risk in the TWWHA, and to provide managers with a simple index to assess the likelihood of forest fires in the

region.

2. Materials and Methods

Our study is focused on two rivers (Franklin and Davey) in the TWWHA which have natural flows that have been

monitored since 1954 and 1964 respectively. These rivers are representative of the southwestern Tasmanian landscapes,

including large tract of Eucalyptus and rainforests (Figure 1). River flow rate data at a sub-daily timestep for the Franklin

and Davey Rivers were obtained from the Australian Bureau of Meteorology’s Water Data Online service for two

gauges, the Franklin River at Mt Fincham Track (42.24°S 145.77°E) and the Davey River below Crossing River (43.13°S

145.95°E) [19]. The geographical domain of our analysis was based on the ecohydrological land and water

Preprints (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 4 March 2021 doi:10.20944/preprints202103.0173.v1

management polygons derived from the Conservation of Freshwater Ecosystem Values (CFEV) spatial dataset provided

by the Tasmanian government, which included Davey and Franklin catchments [20]. This larger geographic domain

was required to capture the few known fires that have occurred during the period covered by the river flow records.

2.1 Soil Moisture Calibration

We investigated the relationship between river flow and the estimates of soil moisture in the two ecohydrological land

and water management domains that included the Franklin and Davey Rivers [20]. Within each of the ecohydrological

land and water management domains, mean monthly soil moisture in the surface soil layer (0-10cm) was calculated

from the Bureau of Meteorology’s BARRA-TA downscaled reanalysis for Tasmania for the period 1990 to 2018 [21].

Linear models of log mean monthly river flow rate against mean monthly surface soil moisture content were trained

using data for the period 1990 to 2014, and models were validated for the period 2015-2018, to establish the relationship

between landscape soil moisture and river flow.

2.2 River Flows and Fire Risk Thresholds

We determined the likelihood of fire in the ecohydrological land and water management domains in relation to river

flows. For each ecohydrological land and water management domains we obtained mapping of past fires spanning the

river flow records [22]. The fire polygons were clipped to forest vegetation (combining Eucalyptus and rainforests) based

on TasVeg 3.0 vegetation mapping [23], excluding treeless (e.g. sedgeland, heathland, alpine) vegetation types. Forest

fires were classified according to area, with fires larger than 50 ha in size labelled as large fires. For each of the two

rivers, a logistic regression was performed, modelling the probability of occurrence of a large fire in a given month

against mean monthly river flow rate, across the available historical record. Two river flow thresholds were derived

from these data and models. First, a low flow threshold was calculated, representing the river flow rate derived from the

logistic model representing >5% probability of a large fire occurring. Second, a median flow threshold was calculated,

representing the median river flow across all months with large fires, with as many fires occurring when the river was

above that flow level as below. Finally, we calculated a high flow threshold, representing the river flow rate above which

no large fires occurred over the available historical record.

For each of the two rivers, the number of years at which the river flow rate was below the median, above the median,

and above the high flow thresholds in each month was calculated. We then calculated the frequency of the number of

months each year from the period November to March inclusive, over the river data record, in which river flow was

below the median flow threshold when fire activity is expected to be more likely.

Preprints (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 4 March 2021 doi:10.20944/preprints202103.0173.v1

For both rivers we assessed historical trends in forest-fire risk based on flows and compared these ecohydrological

estimates with previously determined indices of the risk of fire in temperate rainforest [17] and organic sedgeland soils

[18]. We used meteorological data from Strathgordon BoM station to calculate fire risk to rainforest, and downscaled

soil moisture data for the risk of organic soil combustion. All analyses were conducted in R version 4.0.2 [24] using the

sf [25]and ggeffects [26] packages.

Figure 1. Map of study location in Tasmania, showing Franklin and Davey river gauges, rivers, catchment areas, and forest vegetation.

3. Results

3.1. Soil Moisture Calibration

There is a strong relationship between river flows and soil moisture estimates in ecohydrological land and water man-

agement polygons. Linear regressions of log river flow rate against mean catchment surface layer soil moisture derived

from the BARRA-TA downscaled reanalysis showed excellent predictive performance, with Pearson’s correlation coef-

ficients of 0.9 for the Franklin river and 0.8 for the Davey river (Figure 2), although models tended to underpredict river

flow under higher flow conditions. This may reflect a point of saturation of the surface soil layers and increased over-

land flow that is not accounted for by the model during particularly wet conditions. Such under-prediction of high-

flows is not important for this study because under these fires are unlklely to occur. These results confirm river flow

acts as an excellent proxy for soil moisture across the catchments, particularly in drier conditions when fire is more

likely.

Preprints (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 4 March 2021 doi:10.20944/preprints202103.0173.v1

Figure 2. Model validation plots of river flow based on monthly BARRA-TA catchment surface layer soil moisture for (a) Franklin River and (b) Davey River for the 2015-2018 validation period. 1:1 validation line is shown in red, and modelled line in blue, with standard errors. Validation data points are shown in black.

3.2 River Flow and Fire Risk Thresholds

We found a statistical relationship between river flows and the occurrence of fires in the ecohydrological land and water

management domains. The logistic model of monthly large fire occurrence based on river flow showed a significant

negative association between fire occurrence and river flow (p<0.05 for both Franklin and Davey rivers), with a higher

probability of fire occurrence during periods of low flow (Figure 3). We chose to investigate the river flow associated

with a 5% probability of large fire occurrence, which occurred with a flow below 1750.l ML/day for the Franklin River,

and 414.3 ML/day for the Davey River. This low flow threshold agreed well with the median flow threshold, calculated

as the flow rate below which 50% of the large fires occurred, for the Franklin River (1713.4 ML/day) but was significantly

lower than the median flow threshold for the Davey River (2027.3 ML/day). The lower flow associated with that 5% fire

probability for the Davey River reflects the lower overall incidence of fire in that catchment (Figure 3c vs. 3d) over the

available historical record, with only 1.36 % of months in the Davey River catchment falling below that low flow thresh-

old. We therefore chose to consider the simple median flow threshold in the subsequent analysis of the frequency of

elevated fire risk months for the two rivers.

Preprints (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 4 March 2021 doi:10.20944/preprints202103.0173.v1

Figure 3. Logistic regression model of large fire occurrence against river flow for (a) Franklin River and (b) Davey River, showing the 5% probability low flow threshold in black, the median large fire occurrence in red, and the high high flow threshold in green. Time series plots of monthly river flow for the (c) Franklin River and (d) Davey River are shown below, with the three threshold flows indicated, and large (red) and small (black) fire occurrences and size indicated by circles. Note the red and black lines overlap in panels a and c.

For both the Franklin and Davey rivers, clear seasonal patterns of low river flow associated with high fire risk are

evident (Figure 4) with February being the month most frequently experiencing conditions below the median threshold

in both rivers across the historical record, followed by January and March. Winter months frequently experience wet,

high flow conditions above the high flow threshold beyond which no large fires were recorded.

Figure 4. Frequency of months across the historical river flow record for the (a) Franklin River and (b) Davey River, during which the months were below the median flow threshold (red) and above the high flow threshold (green).

Our summary of the frequency of the number of months within each summer fire season (defined broadly as November

to March inclusive) in which river flows were below the median flow threshold is shown in Figure 5. In both the

Franklin and Davey rivers, it is most common for there to be two months below the medium flow threshold per year,

with only the Franklin river experiencing four years where no summer months were below the median flow threshold.

Preprints (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 4 March 2021 doi:10.20944/preprints202103.0173.v1

Figure 5. Frequency of the number of summer (November-March) months when river flow was below the median flow threshold across the historical record for the (a) Franklin River and (b) Davey River.

Time-series plots of months below the median or above the high flow threshold (Figure 6) highlight the potential utility

of the median fire threshold river flow rate in detecting months with higher likelihood of fire, with strong intra- and

interannual patterning in above- and below-threshold months, including highlighting dry periods outside the summer

fire season. Plots of the count of months per fire season below the median flow threshold (Figure 7a,b) show no strong

trends in drying over time, but this threshold may provide a useful index of change in the future under climate change.

Broadly, our estimates of forest fire risk correlate with another index of fire risk in organic sedgeland and scrub soils

[18] (Figure 7c) but differ from an index of the risk of fire in temperate rainforest [17] (Figure 7d), which is much more

conservative, reflecting the extremely drier conditions required for fire spread in rainforests. The correlation matrix of

Pearson correlation coefficients for fire-season level summaries of time-below-medium flow threshold (Figure 7e) high-

lights the high concordance of river flow fire risk estimates with the index of risk of organic soil combustion, and the

weaker relationship with rainforest fire risk index. It should be noted that sample locations at which these indices

were derived are not all spatially coincident (Figure 7f) but are close enough that seasonal precipitation and drying

patterns should be comparable.

Preprints (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 4 March 2021 doi:10.20944/preprints202103.0173.v1

Figure 6. Monthly river flow threshold status across the historical record for the (a) Franklin River and (b) Davey River.

Preprints (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 4 March 2021 doi:10.20944/preprints202103.0173.v1

Figure 7. Number of months per fire season (July to June) below the median flow threshold for the (a) Franklin and (b) Davey rivers; (c) the proportion of the fire season with soil moisture content below the 17% threshold at the location of the Giblin River fire based on [18], and (d) the proportion of the fire season where the previous 30 days had <50 mm of precipitation at Strathgordon based on [17]. Panel (e) shows Pearson correlation coefficients between the seasonal indices shown in panels (a-d) for coinciding years of data availability. Map (f) shows the location of the sample points the data was taken for on a map of elevation for the area.

4. Discussion

Our analysis shows that the flows of two major Tasmanian undammed rivers provide a reliable landscape proxy for

forest flammability in the TWWHA. The historical river flow record shows that the Eucalyptus forests and rainforests

in the TWWHA are available to burn every year, typically over a two-to-three-month period centred on the austral

summer month of February. Our study has implications for both understanding and managing fire regimes in the

TWWHA as outlined below.

The TWWHA area is one of the wettest environments in Australia, with limited season variation and no pronounced

spring snow melt. Consequently, river flows fluctuate throughout the year. There is considerable inter-annual varia-

bility in rainfall, which has been shown to be an important predictor of area burnt in Tasmania [27]. During dry spells

the landscape can become flammable but there are pronounced differences among vegetation types. Treeless sedge-

lands are available to burn under a much wider range of fuel moistures than forests [28], strongly shaping both

Preprints (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 4 March 2021 doi:10.20944/preprints202103.0173.v1

seasonal occurrence and geographical fire patterns [15]. Sedgeland fires typically self-extinguish on forest edges and

have little effect on organic soils upon which they grow. However, under very dry conditions, which typically occur

at least once each summer, sedgeland fires can damage organic sedgeland soils [18], and can sometimes spread into

surrounding forests [29]. Our analysis shows that our fire risk threshold using river flows broadly corresponds to

other indices that assess risk to organic soils (Figure 7). Such concordance instils confidence in our ecohydrological

fire risk index. The weaker relationship between the river flow and the rainforest fire risk indices is explicable because

rainforests only rarely become available to burn following prolonged dryness [17].

The river flow analysis provides an important context to understand the temporal variation in forest fire risk. Overall,

our study identifies the forest fire season in TWWHA as between December through to March. The climatological

analysis of Fox-Hughes [30] also identified low fire risk in spring months in western Tasmania. An analysis of ob-

served MODIS satellite ‘hotspots’ across Australia [31] identified a slightly later fire season, from February to April.

This difference from our study no doubt reflects the combining of uncontrolled wildfires in the high summer months

with prescribed burning of sedgeland and forest regeneration burning, the latter undertaken in the late summer and

autumn months when fires are unlikely to escape into surrounding forests [32]. Climate projections suggest that the

western Tasmania, and hence the TWWHA, will become drier due to reduced summer rainfall and higher tempera-

tures, leading to an increase in fire risk, and broadening of the fire season in spring [33]. Our analysis, however, does

not show a trend towards worsening fire weather. Indeed, reconstructed summer flows for the King River in west-

ern Tasmania, based on tree-ring analysis, suggest that 20th century flows are similar to the last 400 years [34]. Given

this consistency, river flows are a useful baseline to track changing forest risk in response to climate change. The lack

of a drying trend apparent in this analysis also suggests that the observed increase in fires ignited by lightning in

western Tasmania may reflect an increase in the number or intensity of lightning storms rather than greater ignitabil-

ity of fuels due to dryness although the short time series of lightning data precludes resolution of this conjecture

[29,35].

We know of no prior studies that have used river flows to assess forest fire risk [36]. We acknowledge a limitation of

our study is the low number of fires that have occurred within our ecohydrological domains, restricting our capacity

to precisely define forest fire danger thresholds using logistic modelling. A high flow threshold (0% probability) when

no fires ever occur can only delineate the winter months, whereas a low flow threshold (5% probability) of forest

fire risk is too restrictive. Accordingly, we used a median flow threshold representing the level above with 50% of the

large fires occurred, and below which 50% of the large fires occurred – this does not represent a probability of fire oc-

currence, but is a sensitive, conservative index of when the landscape is available to burn. We suggest the index is

conservative because it represents a river flows at which half of the large forest fires have occurred. We suggest, there-

fore, river flows provide a readily interpretable index of landscape flammability in TWWHA. Serious consideration

should be given to monitoring flows of other undammed rivers in the region to provide managers with a simple

Preprints (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 4 March 2021 doi:10.20944/preprints202103.0173.v1

estimate of fire hazard. We suspect this approach of using river levels may be transferable to other high rainfall envi-

ronments globally, which are likely to be increasingly impacted by forest fires due to climate change [36-38].

Author Contributions: The following statements should be used “Conceptualization, DMJSB.; methodology, and analysis GJW.; writing—original draft preparation, DMJSB.; writing—review and editing, GJW; visualization, GJW. Funding: ARC Discovery - DP200102395 and NSW Bushfire Risk Management Research Hub, New South Wales Department of Planning, Industry & Environment. Acknowledgments: We acknowledge the excellent data resources developed by the Tasmanian Government, without which this study would have been impossible. We thank Lynda Prior for her helpful comments on an earlier draft of this paper. Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest. The funders had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript, or in the decision to publish the results.

References

1. Hardy, C.C. Wildland fire hazard and risk: problems, definitions, and context. Forest ecology and management 2005, 211, 73- 82, doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2005.01.029. 2. Nolan, R.H.; Boer, M.M.; Resco de Dios, V.; Caccamo, G.; Bradstock, R.A. Large‐scale, dynamic transformations in fuel moisture drive wildfire activity across southeastern Australia. Geophysical Research Letters 2016, 43, 4229-4238, doi:10.1002/2016GL068614. 3. Slijepcevic, A.; Anderson, W. Hourly variation in fine fuel moisture in eucalypt forests in Tasmania. Forest Ecology and Management 2006, 234, S36, doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2006.08.033. 4. Flannigan, M.D.; Wotton, B.M.; Marshall, G.A.; de Groot, W.J.; Johnston, J.; Jurko, N.; Cantin, A.S. Fuel moisture sensitivity to temperature and precipitation: climate change implications. Climatic Change 2016, 134, 59-71, doi:10.1007/s10584-015-1521- 0. 5. Noble, I.; Gill, A.; Bary, G. McArthur's fire‐danger meters expressed as equations. Australian Journal of Ecology 1980, 5, 201- 203, doi:10.1111/j.1442-9993.1980.tb01243.x. 6. Keetch, J.J.; Byram, G.M. A drought index for forest fire control; US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southeastern Forest Experiment Station: 1968; Volume 38. 7. Field, R.; Spessa, A.; Aziz, N.; Camia, A.; Cantin, A.; Carr, R.; De Groot, W.; Dowdy, A.; Flannigan, M.; Manomaiphiboon, K. Development of a global fire weather database. Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences 2015, 15, 1407-1423, doi:10.5194/nhess-15-1407-2015. 8. Marlon, J.R.; Bartlein, P.J.; Gavin, D.G.; Long, C.J.; Anderson, R.S.; Briles, C.E.; Brown, K.J.; Colombaroli, D.; Hallett, D.J.; Power, M.J. Long-term perspective on wildfires in the western USA. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 2012, 109, E535-E543, doi:10.1073/pnas.1112839109. 9. Westerling, A.L. Increasing western US forest wildfire activity: sensitivity to changes in the timing of spring. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 2016, 371, 20150178, doi:10.1098/rstb.2015.0178. 10. Department of Primary Industries Parks Water and Environment. Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage Area Management Plan 2016; Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment: Hobart, Tasmania, Australia, 2016. 11. Department of Agriculture Water and the Environment. World Heritage Places - Tasmanian Wilderness. Available online: http://www.environment.gov.au/heritage/places/world/tasmanian-wilderness. (accessed on 3 March 2021). 12. Bureau of Meteorology. Mean monthly, seasonal and annual rainfall data (base climatological data sets). Available online: http://www.bom.gov.au/jsp/ncc/climate_averages/rainfall/index.jsp#info (accessed on 3 March 2021).

Preprints (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 4 March 2021 doi:10.20944/preprints202103.0173.v1

13. Bowman, D.M.; Perry, G.L. Soil or fire: what causes treeless sedgelands in Tasmanian wet forests? Plant and soil 2017, 420, 1-18, doi:10.1007/s11104-017-3386-7. 14. Tng, D.; Williamson, G.; Jordan, G.; Bowman, D. Giant eucalypts–globally unique fire‐adapted rain‐forest trees? New Phytologist 2012, 196, 1001-1014, doi:10.1111/j.1469-8137.2012.04359.x. 15. Wood, S.W.; Murphy, B.P.; Bowman, D.M. Firescape ecology: how topography determines the contrasting distribution of fire and rain forest in the south‐west of the Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage Area. Journal of Biogeography 2011, 38, 1807-1820, doi:10.1111/j.1365-2699.2011.02524.x. 16. Press, A. Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage Area Bushfire and Climate Change Research Project. ; Hobart, Tasmania 2016. 17. Styger, J.; Kirkpatrick, J.B. Less than 50 millimetres of rainfall in the previous month predicts fire in Tasmanian rainforest. Papers and Proceedings of the Royal Society of Tasmania 2015, 149, 1-5, doi:10.26749/rstpp.149.1. 18. Prior, L.D.; French, B.J.; Storey, K.; Williamson, G.J.; Bowman, D.M. Soil moisture thresholds for combustion of organic soils in western Tasmania. International Journal of Wildland Fire 2020, 29, 637-647, doi:10.1071/WF19196. 19. Bureau of Meteorology. Water data online. Available online: http://www.bom.gov.au/waterdata/ (accessed on 3 March 2021). 20. Department of Primary Industries Parks Water and Environment. The CFEV Assessment Framework Summary. Available online: https://dpipwe.tas.gov.au/water/water-monitoring-and-assessment/cfev-program/cfev- resources#TheCFEVTechnicalReport (accessed on 3 March 2021). 21. Bureau of Meteorology. Atmospheric high-resolution regional reanalysis for Australia Available online: http://www.bom.gov.au/research/projects/reanalysis/ (accessed on 3 march 2021). 22. Department of Primary Industries Parks Water and Environment. Fire History. Available online: https://www.thelist.tas.gov.au/app/content/data/geo-meta-data-record?detailRecordUID=b94d4388-995d-416a-9844- a39de2798bed (accessed on 3 March 2021). 23. Department of Primary Industries Parks Water and Environment. TASVEG - The Digital Vegetation Map of Tasmania. Available online: https://dpipwe.tas.gov.au/conservation/development-planning-conservation-assessment/planning- tools/monitoring-and-mapping-tasmanias-vegetation-(tasveg)/tasveg-the-digital-vegetation-map-of-tasmania (accessed on 4 March 2021). 24. Team, R.C. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Available online: https://www.R-project.org/. (accessed on 4 March 2021). 25. Pebesma, E. Simple features for R: Standardized support for spatial vector data. The R Journal 2018, 10, 439-446, doi:/10.32614/RJ-2018-009. 26. D, L. ggeffects: Tidy data frames of marginal effects from regression models. Journal of Open Source Software 2018, 3, 772, doi:10.21105/joss.00772. 27. Nicholls, N.; Lucas, C. Interannual variations of area burnt in Tasmanian bushfires: relationships with climate and predictability. International Journal of Wildland Fire 2007, 16, 540-546, doi:10.1071/WF06125. 28. Marsden-Smedley, J.B.; Catchpole, W.R.; Pyrke, A. Fire modelling in Tasmanian buttongrass moorlands. IV. Sustaining versus non-sustaining fires. International Journal of Wildland Fire 2001, 10, 255-262, doi:10.1071/WF01026. 29. Styger, J.; Marsden-Smedley, J.; Kirkpatrick, J. Changes in lightning fire incidence in the Tasmanian wilderness world heritage area, 1980–2016. Fire 2018, 1, 38, doi:10.3390/fire1030038. 30. Fox-Hughes, P. A fire danger climatology for Tasmania. Australian Meteorological Magazine 2008, 57, 109-120. 31. Williamson, G.J.; Prior, L.D.; Jolly, W.M.; Cochrane, M.A.; Murphy, B.P.; Bowman, D.M. Measurement of inter-and intra- annual variability of landscape fire activity at a continental scale: the Australian case. Environmental Research Letters 2016, 11, 035003, doi:10.1088/1748-9326/11/3/035003.

Preprints (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 4 March 2021 doi:10.20944/preprints202103.0173.v1

32. Tasmania, S.T. Planned burns: What we do. Available online: https://www.sttas.com.au/forest-operations- management/our-operations/planned-burns (accessed on 3 March 2021). 33. Fox-Hughes, P.; Harris, R.; Lee, G.; Grose, M.; Bindoff, N. Future fire danger climatology for Tasmania, Australia, using a dynamically downscaled regional climate model. International journal of wildland fire 2014, 23, 309-321, doi:10.1071/WF13126. 34. Allen, K.; Nichols, S.; Evans, R.; Cook, E.; Allie, S.; Carson, G.; Ling, F.; Baker, P. Preliminary December–J anuary inflow and streamflow reconstructions from tree rings for western T asmania, southeastern A ustralia. Water Resources Research 2015, 51, 5487-5503, doi:10.1002/2015WR017062. 35. Nampak, H.; Love, P.; Fox-Hughes, P.; Watson, C.; Aryal, J.; Harris, R. Characterizing Spatial and Temporal Variability of Lightning Activity Associated with Wildfire over Tasmania, Australia. Fire 2021, 4, 10, doi:doi.org/10.3390/fire4010010. 36. Bowman, D. When will the jungle burn? Nature Climate Change 2017, 7, 390-391, doi:10.1038/nclimate3284. 37. Watt, M.S.; Kirschbaum, M.U.; Moore, J.R.; Pearce, H.G.; Bulman, L.S.; Brockerhoff, E.G.; Melia, N. Assessment of multiple climate change effects on plantation forests in New Zealand. Forestry: An International Journal of Forest Research 2019, 92, 1- 15, doi:10.1093/forestry/cpy024. 38. Seidl, R.; Thom, D.; Kautz, M.; Martin-Benito, D.; Peltoniemi, M.; Vacchiano, G.; Wild, J.; Ascoli, D.; Petr, M.; Honkaniemi, J. Forest disturbances under climate change. Nature Climate Change 2017, 7, 395-402, doi:10.1038/nclimate3303.